Agenda item

Scrutiny Committee considered a Cabinet report with recommendations to Cabinet and Council on the Local Plan Part 2 review. The item was introduced by the Cabinet member for Policy and Programmes. This was related to the VOWHDC current Local Plan and was a review of Part Two (LPP2), which was a statutory duty. It was not regarding the developing Joint Local Plan (JLP). Members were welcomed to ask questions of the Cabinet member. The officers supporting the item were the Planning Policy Team Leader, who was online. The Head of Policy and Programmes was in the meeting room.

It was explained that the review was a requirement and that the forming of a Joint Local Plan (which was at an advanced stage) would have many updated and improved policies - 2 policies in LPP2 were being carried forward in the JLP; 5 policies were being deleted; and 50 policies were being replaced. Members asked questions about the deleted policies and wanted clarification. Members were assured that the JLP would bring updated policies and sooner, than if the LPP2 was reviewed again at this stage.

The Cabinet member explained in response to questioning that if the JLP was not accepted at examination, the council would probably be asked to make modifications to the JLP. We were obligated to do the LPP2 review now. JLP would help us to have up-to-date policies sooner. If the JLP did not pass examination, officers would then review existing plans. The appendix to the report was the LPP2 review documents. Members were assured that there were not any known risks to this in the nine months before the JLP.

It was confirmed that the councils had more up to date plans than many other authorities. The work of the review took into account the context of an advanced JLP. The methodology of the review considered this, focussing on the difference between LPP2 and the JLP preferred options version that was consulted on with the public. The review identified and compared policies of the LPP2 and the JLP in order to achieve up to date policies.

Specific policies were queried:  

·       CP15C (reference page 26) was deleted - through development management process, a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was not required. A member raised a local issue - Grove had an allocation of 400 to 600 homes and needed the SPD. The Cabinet member offered a written response to Councillor Batstone. The Team Leader added that this was a factual statement – it would not be in JLP in the form it was in, yet it could be scrutinised at a later stage. Members were encouraged to speak to such issues as Full Council in October.

·       CP14A – Thames strategic storage reservoir – the Secretary of State had approved the management plan. Members expressed the need for local councillors to be able to input into this and make sure it was managed appropriately.

·       CB8B – Dalton Barracks strategic location - a member asked was there a risk of increasing housing numbers. Members were reminded that this was a review and not an update.

·       National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): it was confirmed that when this was updated by Government, we weren’t at risk.

·       Typographical error raised at CP18A page 30 of the pack – ‘Thames River Crossing between Culham and Didcot’

Members completed their questioning and discussed the three options given in the report. Members were made aware that requesting officers to make changes to the Local Plan Part Two would take longer than the completion of the JLP, which would bring many updated policies sooner.The committee voted as follows:

Recommendation to Cabinet

Committee voted in favour of Option 1 as listed in the officer report: To approve the Regulation 10A review of LPP2 for publication in October 2024 and decide not to revise LPP2 policies.

The report explained that this action would comply with Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). The review within the report shall fulfil the Council’s duty to consider whether to revise the document. Whilst this review concluded that there were LPP2 policies that required updating, the preparation of the JLP makes the revision of LPP2 policies not necessary as it would not produce a set of up-to-date development plan policies sooner than via the JLP process that was already underway and at an advanced stage. This was the recommended option from officers.

Concerns raised in the meeting on higher allocation at Dalton Barracks and Grove can be raised at Full Council, with the Cabinet member also welcoming queries which would be given a written response.